General team info

[Irish#1]

Interesting article, mostly about basketball, but is relevant to all sports and how youth today play far more games and practice more than previous generations did before they ever reach the pros. This single sport specialization has led to bodies breaking down sooner and more injuries, which made me think about the ACL issues and other injuries we were running into several years ago.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27125793/these-kids-ticking-bombs-threat-youth-basketball

Agree with all the comments on how specializing has eroded youth sports. I remember one of my boys was recruited to play on a baseball travel team back around 94-95. We declined because we were going on vacation in about 3-4 weeks. The coach got upset, but offered to put him on the team after we got back. We still declined because he would have cut a kid to add our son. A couple of years later, his team only had two original members (one his son) as he kept recruiting better players from all around and dumping kids already on the team. All youth sports are the same today. The only difference is the shape of the ball.

BTW..........Check out youth cheerleading. OMG!

 

[RDU Irish]

Hellllllll no. Notre Dame needs to beat the teams they’re supposed to. Notre Dame could get in the playoffs if they lose a game, but that loss has to come to UGA or UM.

Notre Dame has way too much talent and one of the best QBs in the country; a loss to anyone not named UGA or UM would be a huge head scratcher.

At some point we need to beat Top 10 teams to validate a Top 10 presence. Plus UVA's schedule shapes up very well for a 10 win season - would not end up looking that embarrassing. Plus who gives AF about UVA football versus UGA/USC/UM fans being unbearable to lose to.

 

[spoonidentity]

https://athlonsports.com/college-fo...-will-wont-make-college-football-playoff-2019

Thought this was a pretty good preview/prediction for the Irish, accurately listing a key strengths and weaknesses. They predicted 10-2.

Largely agree with this, considering a favorable home schedule and three tough road contests. I could see 11-1, but have to imagine the "over" is the betting favorite with O/U set at 9.5 games.

He nailed the ST concerns that I've spoken too previously this offseason. I'm in the more optimistic camp when it comes to the middle of the defense. We have a lot of bodies to choose from, most of whom have experience and are upper-classmen, both at DT/NT and ILB. Will there be regression? Most likely, but I don't think it will be as bad as some think.

Interesting to read through this. I also read Bill Connelly's S&P prediction and heard him on the Rakes podcast a few months ago. What I find interesting is that these predictive models - probably all based on S&P anyway - list the O-Line performance as a weakness going into this year. I'm a believer in using analytics to review a performance but not necessarily as a great predictor of future outcomes, especially year over year.

I find it somewhat incongruous that there's seemingly no predicted room for O-Line improvement but any other team with any other position there is anticipated growth. I find it hard to believe that a unit that has 3 or 4 returning starters would not be better. Most people would expect JT Daniels to be better, Justyn Ross to be better, Tua to be better, Trevor Lawrence to be better, etc, all with another year of experience.

Of course, I don't predict we would go into top 10 in all metrics but if the Adjusted Line Yards rank improves from 106 to the 60's (middle of the FBS ranks) or the stuff rate rank improves from 121 to the 60's that could be very meaningful improvements on offensive efficiency overall.

 

[IrishLion]

Interesting to read through this. I also read Bill Connelly's S&P prediction and heard him on the Rakes podcast a few months ago. What I find interesting is that these predictive models - probably all based on S&P anyway - list the O-Line performance as a weakness going into this year. I'm a believer in using analytics to review a performance but not necessarily as a great predictor of future outcomes, especially year over year.

I find it somewhat incongruous that there's seemingly no predicted room for O-Line improvement but any other team with any other position there is anticipated growth. I find it hard to believe that a unit that has 3 or 4 returning starters would not be better. Most people would expect JT Daniels to be better, Justyn Ross to be better, Tua to be better, Trevor Lawrence to be better, etc, all with another year of experience.

Of course, I don't predict we would go into top 10 in all metrics but if the Adjusted Line Yards rank improves from 106 to the 60's (middle of the FBS ranks) or the stuff rate rank improves from 121 to the 60's that could be very meaningful improvements on offensive efficiency overall.

The S&P+ model can't account for expected improvement of players... it can only use the evidence at hand, so it's not like other teams and position groups are getting credit in the actual S&P+ numbers towards potential growth.

Everyone pretty much acknowledges that the OL needs to be way better in 2019, including Connelly, because the offense wasn't nearly as efficient last year as it may have seemed at times (probably because Book was such a massive improvement over Wimbush, and we didn't realize how badly Wimbush's accuraccy issues were actually hurting the offense analytically). It was below average between the 20's, and a little bit worse inside the 20's.

The analytics will start to reflect any potential growth (or stagnation) after week 4 or 5 next year, as that's when the rankings will start to reflect teams more true to form, rather than relying on previous years' evidence.

 

[BabyIrish]

Hellllllll no. Notre Dame needs to beat the teams they’re supposed to. Notre Dame could get in the playoffs if they lose a game, but that loss has to come to UGA or UM.

Notre Dame has way too much talent and one of the best QBs in the country; a loss to anyone not named UGA or UM would be a huge head scratcher.

Disagree. The country, media, etc. would be much more forgiving losing to UVA and beating the top teams on our schedule, because we're actually beating quality opponents. They'd chalk it up to just a bad day at the office.

I think we'd have a much better chance of making the playoff being 11-1 with a loss to UVA than 11-1 with a loss to UGA for two reasons:

1. We're more than likely fighting for a playoff spot with Georgia rather than UVA and having the head to head would be huge.
2. Wins against ranked teams seem to have more value than wins against crappy teams, eg. UCF. Wins against UGA, UM, and Stanford balance out the loss to UVA.

Of course, let's just go 12-0 and not have to worry about it

 

[IrishLion]

Hellllllll no. Notre Dame needs to beat the teams they’re supposed to. Notre Dame could get in the playoffs if they lose a game, but that loss has to come to UGA or UM.

Notre Dame has way too much talent and one of the best QBs in the country; a loss to anyone not named UGA or UM would be a huge head scratcher.

Disagree. The country, media, etc. would be much more forgiving losing to UVA and beating the top teams on our schedule, because we're actually beating quality opponents. They'd chalk it up to just a bad day at the office.

I think we'd have a much better chance of making the playoff being 11-1 with a loss to UVA than 11-1 with a loss to UGA for two reasons:

1. We're more than likely fighting for a playoff spot with Georgia rather than UVA and having the head to head would be huge.
2. Wins against ranked teams seem to have more value than wins against crappy teams, eg. UCF. Wins against UGA, UM, and Stanford balance out the loss to UVA.

Of course, let's just go 12-0 and not have to worry about it

Agree with BabyIrish.

Not only does ND desperately need a win against a top-tier team like UGA to really shift perception, but the playoff committee has shown plenty of times that they weight big wins much more heavily than they do head-scratching losses.

You can survive having one (1) loss and make the playoffs as long as you beat the best team you played. They want to see evidence of your team's ceiling.

 

[arrowryan]

Disagree. The country, media, etc. would be much more forgiving losing to UVA and beating the top teams on our schedule, because we're actually beating quality opponents. They'd chalk it up to just a bad day at the office.

I think we'd have a much better chance of making the playoff being 11-1 with a loss to UVA than 11-1 with a loss to UGA for two reasons:

1. We're more than likely fighting for a playoff spot with Georgia rather than UVA and having the head to head would be huge.
2. Wins against ranked teams seem to have more value than wins against crappy teams, eg. UCF. Wins against UGA, UM, and Stanford balance out the loss to UVA.

Of course, let's just go 12-0 and not have to worry about it

Agree with BabyIrish.

Not only does ND desperately need a win against a top-tier team like UGA to really shift perception, but the playoff committee has shown plenty of times that they weight big wins much more heavily than they do head-scratching losses.

You can survive having one (1) loss and make the playoffs as long as you beat the best team you played. They want to see evidence of your team's ceiling.

I just see it differently I guess. I think of OSU getting left out when they lost to Iowa in one year and Purdue in another. Yes, I know they got taken to the wood shed. If Notre Dame loses to UVA in that fashion, then it would be impossible to come up with an argument for ND.

I just remember the days, like everyone else, where Notre Dame loses to teams that they had no reason losing to. UVA might be primed for a 10 win season, but they're not the caliber of the Irish. Win every game and we have nothing to worry about.

 

[zelezo vlk]

I just see it differently I guess. I think of OSU getting left out when they lost to Iowa in one year and Purdue in another. Yes, I know they got taken to the wood shed. If Notre Dame loses to UVA in that fashion, then it would be impossible to come up with an argument for ND.

I just remember the days, like everyone else, where Notre Dame loses to teams that they had no reason losing to. UVA might be primed for a 10 win season, but they're not the caliber of the Irish. Win every game and we have nothing to worry about.

OSU also lost to Oklahoma the year they were stomped at Iowa.

 

[IrishLion]

I just see it differently I guess. I think of OSU getting left out when they lost to Iowa in one year and Purdue in another. Yes, I know they got taken to the wood shed. If Notre Dame loses to UVA in that fashion, then it would be impossible to come up with an argument for ND.

I just remember the days, like everyone else, where Notre Dame loses to teams that they had no reason losing to. UVA might be primed for a 10 win season, but they're not the caliber of the Irish. Win every game and we have nothing to worry about.

I'm with you on this, and it's not mutually exclusive with the "making the playoffs" argument.

ND losing to UGA and/or scUM is acceptable as long as they handle their business against the teams they are supposed to beat, like you say. It hurts the playoff argument, and gives the trolls more ammo that Nd can't win the big games, but it puts the program in a better spot overall than it has been in a long time and puts them closer to winning those big games based on stability. Having less extreme valleys and peaks is huge for the program.

Getting to 10 wins is the most important thing for the program, in terms of continuing to build towards frequent playoff appearances, and it doesn't matter who those 10 wins are, really, because if they get to 10, it likely means they won at least one big game.

The answer about "who should they beat and who should they lose to" can have a different answer when you put it in the playoff vacuum.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Are we actually considering UM a tough opponent?

 

[arrowryan]

Are we actually considering UM a tough opponent?

Notre Dame hasn't won there since 2005, so yeah.

 

[IrishLion]

Are we actually considering UM a tough opponent?

For some unknown reason, everyone in the world thinks they will be significantly better than ND this year (based on playoff odds and preseason polls, at least).

Perception is reality when it comes to CFB at large, unfortunately.

On the flip side, it's good for ND, because everyone thought the same before last year, too, while us reasonable folk realized that ND had as much production coming back to a team that had been better than scUM in 2017, and so could be expected to be better in 2018, too.

Let scUM come into the matchup ranked in the top-5... it will be huge when ND wins, even if they have a respectable loss to UGA on their record.

 

[fightingirish26]

Hellllllll no. Notre Dame needs to beat the teams they’re supposed to. Notre Dame could get in the playoffs if they lose a game, but that loss has to come to UGA or UM.

Notre Dame has way too much talent and one of the best QBs in the country; a loss to anyone not named UGA or UM would be a huge head scratcher.

I'm not sure ND will ever be able to make the playoffs with one loss

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Are we actually considering UM a tough opponent?

We are going to kick their asses!

 

[RDU Irish]

Agree with BabyIrish.

Not only does ND desperately need a win against a top-tier team like UGA to really shift perception, but the playoff committee has shown plenty of times that they weight big wins much more heavily than they do head-scratching losses.

You can survive having one (1) loss and make the playoffs as long as you beat the best team you played. They want to see evidence of your team's ceiling.

Bingo! Dead on for the CFP - especially if we lose in the first month it will be easy for our quality wins to override laying an egg. Biggest argument against ND in the playoffs right now is we can't beat anyone elite and get embarrassed on the biggest stages. Can't say that coming off of wins AT the big house and AT UGA.

My point is personal too - would rather see us beat those obnoxious fan bases and go WTF vs. the Hoos. Then we get to be like the entire SEC and shrug off the game as "we didn't care" "we are obviously the much better team!" like the delusional skunk bears who think they beat us last year.

 

[BabyIrish]

I just see it differently I guess. I think of OSU getting left out when they lost to Iowa in one year and Purdue in another. Yes, I know they got taken to the wood shed. If Notre Dame loses to UVA in that fashion, then it would be impossible to come up with an argument for ND.

I just remember the days, like everyone else, where Notre Dame loses to teams that they had no reason losing to. UVA might be primed for a 10 win season, but they're not the caliber of the Irish. Win every game and we have nothing to worry about.

I definitely don't disagree with what you are saying, especially from a fan standpoint. I'd hate being upset by any team we know we should beat. But because of the current playoff system we are in, I think the committee values big wins over pretty much anything.

 

[RDU Irish]

Give me higher highs, please. Beating UM and UGA on the road in the same season would be bigly. Like saying I would rather lose to FSU in 1993 and beat BC. I can't fathom anyone in their right mind picking that scenario.

 

[IRISHMAN]

I'm not sure ND will ever be able to make the playoffs with one loss

ND would have gone to the playoff in 2015 with one loss (Clemson) had ND not lost the last game of the year to Stanford.

 

[RDU Irish]

ND would have gone to the playoff in 2015 with one loss (Clemson) had ND not lost the last game of the year to Stanford.

I agree - very lazy analysis, totally depends on who we beat vs how/when we lost one before you even factor in the resume of other teams competing for a playoff spot. PAC12, B1Got and Big12 are not likely to produce undefeated champs and definitely not all in the same year. One loss ND most likely gets in over 2 of those 3 one loss champs on SoS and definitely $$ value. At least one is likely to self implode with a 2 loss or more champ.

I will believe a one loss ND team is "definitely out" after I see it happen a few times. This could easily be the year we put this philosophy to the test.

 

[fightingirish26]

ND would have gone to the playoff in 2015 with one loss (Clemson) had ND not lost the last game of the year to Stanford.

You realize we were ranked 6 going into that game?

 

[fightingirish26]

I agree - very lazy analysis, totally depends on who we beat vs how/when we lost one before you even factor in the resume of other teams competing for a playoff spot. PAC12, B1Got and Big12 are not likely to produce undefeated champs and definitely not all in the same year. One loss ND most likely gets in over 2 of those 3 one loss champs on SoS and definitely $$ value. At least one is likely to self implode with a 2 loss or more champ.

I will believe a one loss ND team is "definitely out" after I see it happen a few times. This could easily be the year we put this philosophy to the test.

people were making serious arguments that we should have been left out THIS year, and we were undefeated. we get shit on for not being on a conference.

 

[greyhammer90]

You realize we were ranked 6 going into that game?

And Oklahoma ranked ahead of us was smoking a very good OSU team on the same night we wouldve barely beat Stanford. We were getting left out because we looked like shit in November that year. I don't know where people get this idea that we were in if we had won. We were a longshot at best.

 

[gkIrish]

ND would have gone to the playoff in 2015 with one loss (Clemson) had ND not lost the last game of the year to Stanford.

 

[zelezo vlk]

Do people forget that the team was #3 with 1 loss before the South Beach Disaster back in 2017? The loss has to be respectable, no losing to Duke. But look like you belong and the committee will reward you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[BabyIrish]

Do people forget that the team was #3 with 1 loss before the South Beach Disaster back in 2017? The loss has to be respectable, no losing to Duke. But look like you belong and the committee will reward you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

We also lost to #1 Clemson in 15 and wouldn’t have gotten in. In ‘17 we had the marquee wins to back it up. We didn’t in ‘15. Marquee wins get you in. Period.

 

[ulukinatme]

People need to get it out of their head that a 1 loss Irish team is in. There are scenarios that it can happen, but it's unlikely they make room for us over a 12-1 conference champion. 12-0 is pretty much the only guarantee, cause it's damn near impossible for 4 conference champions to have a perfect slate. We've seen 1 loss champions get ranked ahead of us too, which is why we pretty much have to run the table to get a spot. The best situation we can hope for when it comes to perennial playoff attendance is to get to at least 8 teams and then we should be fine with 1 loss.

 

[BGIF]

People need to get it out of their head that a 1 loss Irish team is in. There are scenarios that it can happen, but it's unlikely they make room for us over a 12-1 conference champion. 12-0 is pretty much the only guarantee, cause it's damn near impossible for 4 conference champions to have a perfect slate. We've seen 1 loss champions get ranked ahead of us too, which is why we pretty much have to run the table to get a spot. The best situation we can hope for when it comes to perennial playoff attendance is to get to at least 8 teams and then we should be fine with 1 loss.

Telling it, like it is.

 

[Crazy Balki]

I just see it differently I guess. I think of OSU getting left out when they lost to Iowa in one year and Purdue in another. Yes, I know they got taken to the wood shed. If Notre Dame loses to UVA in that fashion, then it would be impossible to come up with an argument for ND.

I just remember the days, like everyone else, where Notre Dame loses to teams that they had no reason losing to. UVA might be primed for a 10 win season, but they're not the caliber of the Irish. Win every game and we have nothing to worry about.

Ohio State didn't get left out because they lost to Purdue and Iowa. They got left out because they got DESTROYED by Purde and Iowa.

 

[Crazy Balki]

Telling it, like it is.

Except it isn't. Every year is different.

In 2017, ND is in with 1 loss.
In 2018, ND is out with 1 loss.

 

[IrishFaninTX]

Disagree. The country, media, etc. would be much more forgiving losing to UVA and beating the top teams on our schedule, because we're actually beating quality opponents. They'd chalk it up to just a bad day at the office.

I think we'd have a much better chance of making the playoff being 11-1 with a loss to UVA than 11-1 with a loss to UGA for two reasons:

1. We're more than likely fighting for a playoff spot with Georgia rather than UVA and having the head to head would be huge.
2. Wins against ranked teams seem to have more value than wins against crappy teams, eg. UCF. Wins against UGA, UM, and Stanford balance out the loss to UVA.

Of course, let's just go 12-0 and not have to worry about it

That didn't work well for OSU, though. They stomped Michigan but lost badly to Purdue. Though Purdue isn't a power house, they have steadily improved and are starting to recruit better. I think had they lost to Michigan, they may have still had trouble getting in but only because Michigan would have taken that last spot over them and probably even OU. I would have loved Bama to kill Michigan in a big game. Oh well, Florida took care of that